[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Neocon Nuttery See other Neocon Nuttery Articles Title: Judge: ‘Birther’ Lawyer May Have Urged Witnesses To Lie On The Stand; Birthers Plan To Protest Fox's O'Reilly For Not Backing Them A US District Court judge in California has dismissed one of "birther" leader Orly Taitz's lawsuits challenging President Barack Obama's right to be president, and expressed "deep concerns" that the lawyer urged witnesses in the case to perjure themselves. Judge David O. Carter dismissed a lawsuit filed by Taitz on behalf of US Army Capt. Pamela Barnett, who had asked the court for the right to refuse military orders because she believes Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is not the legitimate commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In his ruling (PDF), the judge said he dismissed the suit because allowing it to go forward would force the court "to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people." Judge Carter wrote: “In order for Plaintiffs’ alleged injury to be fully addressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless." As reported by David Weigel at the Washington Independent, the judge stated he had "received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves." Judge Carter wrote: This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court. As Rachel Slajda noted at TalkingPointsMemo, the judge poured heavy criticism on Taitz's actions during preliminary court proceedings. "Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction," Carter wrote. "Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic." Taitz had earlier declared that she planned to file an appeal if the case was dismissed, reports the Orange County Register. As Weigel noted, of all of Taitz's lawsuits challenging President Obama, the Barnett case was the one that had gotten furthest through the legal system. Another of Taitz's lawsuits, in a federal court in Georgia, ended two weeks ago when the judge issued Taitz a $20,000 fine for ignoring court rules and filing "frivolous" lawsuits. "Birthers" are already challenging the judge's ruling, and suggesting judicial impropriety in the matter. The birther-friendly news site WorldNetDaily ran a story on Thursday alleging that Judge Carter employs a court clerk who used to work for a law firm -- Perkins Coie -- that has defended the Obama administration in other "birther" suits. BIRTHERS TURN ON O'REILLY Fox News prime-time host Bill O'Reilly is the latest media target of the "birther" movement, after O'Reilly commented on Tuesday that he thinks the "birther" lawsuits are "crazy." The off-the-cuff comment didn't go by unnoticed by Taitz's followers, and now they are planning a protest outside Fox news headquarters in New York on Veterans' Day. On her Web site, Taitz wrote, "Keep in mind, what OReilly did, is more dangerous, more harmful then what some idiots like Rachel Maddow or Keith [Olbermann] did, since people believe O’Reilly to be fair and balanced." Taitz told the news blog Conservative Monster that O'Reilly is "not a legitimate journalist" because he had not contacted her about the story he planned to air. Taitz "stated that if Fox gave her a 30-minute show for her to display her evidence, Obama would have to resign from office within 48 hours," the Web site reported. The following video was uploaded to YouTube on October 28, 2009. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
Here's what Judge Carter has to say about superlawyer Orly. " F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id. Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision. Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court." Orly's going DOWN!
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||